This thread makes me lol though. I love it when communists/socialists try to make things work in a real economic model.

Yeah, like the current economic model is perfect (US government having to take socialist measures to prevent their economy from collapsing).

Better than communism.

Better for Freeriders (read: bankers)

Ha ha, the bankers certainly are doing very well. The current system is horrible, but I think the Soviet Union showed that it (the current system) is still better than a State-run communist system. Perhaps not for much longer. End the Fed.

This thread makes me lol though. I love it when communists/socialists try to make things work in a real economic model.

Yeah, like the current economic model is perfect (US government having to take socialist measures to prevent their economy from collapsing).

Better than communism.

Better for Freeriders (read: bankers)

Ha ha, the bankers certainly are doing very well. The current system is horrible, but I think the Soviet Union showed that it (the current system) is still better than a State-run communist system. Perhaps not for much longer. End the Fed.

People from the Americas always refer to the USSR as THE model for communism, which was horrible in its implementation as a communist system. They also don't consider what happened before the red revolutions that led to the development of communist system. You see the same patterns coming back these days (just like the return of fascism in Europe). History is repeating itself.

People from the Americas always refer to the USSR as THE model for communism, which was horrible in its implementation as a communist system. They also don't consider what happened before the red revolutions that led to the development of communist system. You see the same patterns coming back these days (just like the return of fascism in Europe). History is repeating itself.

Agreed. And, at the risk of being pedantic, Warsaw Pact Communist parties never presided over communist systems, only over socialist systems (Western academics of the period referred to the study of these countries' economies as studies of "real existing socialism). As Marxist parties, they believed in state-socialist economies and "dictatorships of the proletariat" which would - eventually - "wither away" leaving communism behind. Never quite happened. Still, it might yet happen in China, Korea, Vietnam or Cuba. I'm not holding my breath waiting, however!

I'd argue that the only examples of large-scale "real existing communism" are Ukraine in the 1920s (before the Red Army crushed the anarchists and replaced anarchist communism with state-socialism) and Catalonia in the 1930s (before the Soviet Union crushed the anarchists and replaced anarchist communism with state-socialism).

This thread makes me lol though. I love it when communists/socialists try to make things work in a real economic model.

Yeah, like the current economic model is perfect (US government having to take socialist measures to prevent their economy from collapsing).

Better than communism.

Better for Freeriders (read: bankers)

Ha ha, the bankers certainly are doing very well. The current system is horrible, but I think the Soviet Union showed that it (the current system) is still better than a State-run communist system. Perhaps not for much longer. End the Fed.

People from the Americas always refer to the USSR as THE model for communism, which was horrible in its implementation as a communist system. They also don't consider what happened before the red revolutions that led to the development of communist system. You see the same patterns coming back these days (just like the return of fascism in Europe). History is repeating itself.

Can you give an example of a State-run communist system that did better? China was an apalling disaster as well, and only started to grow strong when they allowed some economic reforms in.

Well, I think there are no good examples of state-run communist systems (maybe the ones that LMGTFY mentioned, but I don't know the details about those examples). Some of the socialist states in South-America (Bolivia) are IMHO better examples of communist states then the old communist states ever were.

Well, I think there are no good examples of state-run communist systems (maybe the ones that LMGTFY mentioned, but I don't know the details about those examples). Some of the socialist states in South-America (Bolivia) are IMHO better examples of communist states then the old communist states ever were.

Well, I think there are no good examples of state-run communist systems (maybe the ones that LMGTFY mentioned, but I don't know the details about those examples). Some of the socialist states in South-America (Bolivia) are IMHO better examples of communist states then the old communist states ever were.

The ones I mentioned weren't state-run. ;-) I'm less and less convinced that state-run anything can be good...

Depends on your definition of good. A state run postal service might deliver mail to places where there isn't any profit to be made. Too far, too few people who live there etc. That would be "good" for those living there, but not "good" in an economical sense.Private companies generally don't bother going where there isn't any market, or where there's no market to be created.

It did! Back on topic, Slush's pool is advertised as (well, it's forum thread advertises it as...) "cooperative mining". I realise that there are different models of cooperative enterprise, but pools seem to be fairly good examples of "workers and consumers cooperatives": profits are shared between members and employees. That seems fairly close to the original ideals of communism (and fairly distant from the Marxist-Leninist reality...) to me.

It did! Back on topic, Slush's pool is advertised as (well, it's forum thread advertises it as...) "cooperative mining". I realise that there are different models of cooperative enterprise, but pools seem to be fairly good examples of "workers and consumers cooperatives": profits are shared between members and employees. That seems fairly close to the original ideals of communism (and fairly distant from the Marxist-Leninist reality...) to me.

Except that it is more in line with the corporate model: the amount of shares (hash power) you have determine your profit. A communist pool would reward you according to your need, not your ability, right?

It did! Back on topic, Slush's pool is advertised as (well, it's forum thread advertises it as...) "cooperative mining". I realise that there are different models of cooperative enterprise, but pools seem to be fairly good examples of "workers and consumers cooperatives": profits are shared between members and employees. That seems fairly close to the original ideals of communism (and fairly distant from the Marxist-Leninist reality...) to me.

Except that it is more in line with the corporate model: the amount of shares (hash power) you have determine your profit. A communist pool would reward you according to your need, not your ability, right?

I don't need any bitcoins :-) And isn't "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" specifically Marxist, not necessarily communist per se. This is the trap I'm trying to highlight: "we" identify communism with Karl Marx's ideas and with Marxist-Leninist states, states which claimed to be only socialist, and claimed to want - one day in a happy future (!) - to be communist.

It did! Back on topic, Slush's pool is advertised as (well, it's forum thread advertises it as...) "cooperative mining". I realise that there are different models of cooperative enterprise, but pools seem to be fairly good examples of "workers and consumers cooperatives": profits are shared between members and employees. That seems fairly close to the original ideals of communism (and fairly distant from the Marxist-Leninist reality...) to me.

Except that it is more in line with the corporate model: the amount of shares (hash power) you have determine your profit. A communist pool would reward you according to your need, not your ability, right?

I don't need any bitcoins :-) And isn't "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" specifically Marxist, not necessarily communist per se. This is the trap I'm trying to highlight: "we" identify communism with Karl Marx's ideas and with Marxist-Leninist states, states which claimed to be only socialist, and claimed to want - one day in a happy future (!) - to be communist.

Ha, ha, ha, I probably don't know what I'm talking about then. I thought Marx was the dude who invented communism? So what is the main tenet of communism? It seems like you can't have communism without the state because someone has to distribute the resources to the appropriate people and make sure the greedy capitalist pigs aren't owning property.

Edit: You also don't need a computer, or more than one or two pairs of clothes, or more than 1400 calories a day. The difference between needs and wants can be rather arbitrary; at least when it comes to specific amounts. We need food, but how much?

Except that it is more in line with the corporate model: the amount of shares (hash power) you have determine your profit. A communist pool would reward you according to your need, not your ability, right?

I don't need any bitcoins :-) And isn't "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" specifically Marxist, not necessarily communist per se. This is the trap I'm trying to highlight: "we" identify communism with Karl Marx's ideas and with Marxist-Leninist states, states which claimed to be only socialist, and claimed to want - one day in a happy future (!) - to be communist.

Ha, ha, ha, I probably don't know what I'm talking about then. I thought Marx was the dude who invented communism? So what is the main tenet of communism? It seems like you can't have communism without the state because someone has to distribute the resources to the appropriate people and make sure the greedy capitalist pigs aren't owning property.

Edit: You also don't need a computer, or more than one or two pairs of clothes, or more than 1400 calories a day. The difference between needs and wants can be rather arbitrary; at least when it comes to specific amounts. We need food, but how much?

And you think I know what I'm talking about?! I'm basing this on a decade-and-a-half ago study of pol. sci, and I'm arguing for things I don't believe in :-)

Communism certainly pre-dated Marx, and as I understand it doesn't always assume the necessity of a state - the earliest split amongst communists was between a pro-Marx faction (authoritarian, pro-state) and a pro-Proudhon faction (libertarian, anti-state). Proudhon believed not in the state but in small-scale communities. However, I've seen good arguments on this forum for even small communities like this being, effectively, state-surrogates. So don't take Proudhon as necessarily a good example of a non-statist.

I've also seen good arguments here that we need nothing, even food. I'm not sure I'm convinced by these arguments, but definitely food (sorry!) for thought.

It always seems people, indeed, relate communism with Marx. I really think communism as a principle is simply to contribute with what you can to the community, selflessly. In other words, the community's benefit, and well-being is number one. In my opinion, IF this was to be applied as i've just defined it, that community would be better economically, and socially, than any other community based on whatever political system.

Greed is what prevents communism (not necessarily Marx's) from working. Apply it purely, and it'll work perfectly; then again, who would do so?

In short, people who argued here for communism, brought-up good examples, and good points. People who argued against it, just don't know what it's all about, and actually just see USSR and its EPIC fail, and China's hypocrisy.

What about a pool that pays proportionally to the time contributed, ignoring computing power?

So if i register an account, connect the miner program and receive work, but submit no shares or submit bad shares, i've contributed a lot of time, but performed no useful work. I still get paid proportionally for the time contributed?

It did! Back on topic, Slush's pool is advertised as (well, it's forum thread advertises it as...) "cooperative mining". I realise that there are different models of cooperative enterprise, but pools seem to be fairly good examples of "workers and consumers cooperatives": profits are shared between members and employees. That seems fairly close to the original ideals of communism (and fairly distant from the Marxist-Leninist reality...) to me.

Except that it is more in line with the corporate model: the amount of shares (hash power) you have determine your profit. A communist pool would reward you according to your need, not your ability, right?

Most corporations don't pay you a percentage of their profits according to what you produce for them (minus a fee); they pay you a flat salary, with a fraction of profitsharing (if you're lucky). They make much more money from you than you make yourself.

Still beats out the communist model thus far

Hey, though: you could open a donation pool, where people contribute spare mining effort (or coins directly), and a board of trustees donates the results to worthy projects. Write up a mission statement! It won't make you rich, but you might get some donated CPU cycles or a few spare coins from the members of the community...